Abstract Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Stephen Keith McGrath, Stephen Jonathan Whitty, (2018)," Accountability and responsibility defined", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 11 Issue 3, pp.687-707, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-06-2017-0058 __________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract Purpose – To remove confusion surrounding the terms responsibility and accountability from the general and project management arenas by creating ‘refined’ (with unnecessary elements removed) definitions of these terms. Design/methodology/approach – A method of deriving refined definitions for a group of terms by ensuring there is no internal conflict or overlap is adopted and applied to resolve the confusion. Findings – The confusion between responsibility and accountability can be characterised as a failure to separate the obligation to satisfactorily perform a task (responsibility) from the liability to ensure that it is satisfactorily done (accountability). Furthermore, clarity of application can be achieved if legislative and organisational accountabilities are differentiated and it is recognised that accountability and responsibility transition across organisational levels. A difficulty in applying accountability in RACI tables is also resolved. Research limitations/implications – Clear definition of responsibility and accountability will facilitate future research endeavours by removing confusion surrounding the terms. Verification of the method used through its success in deriving these ‘refined’ definitions suggests its suitability for application to other contested terms. Practical implications – Projects and businesses alike can benefit from removal of confusion around the definitions of responsibility and accountability in the academic research they fund and attempt to apply. They can also achieve improvements in both efficiency and effectiveness in undertaking organisation-wide exercises to determine organisational responsibilities and accountabilities as well as in the application of governance models. Social implications – Refined definitions of responsibility and accountability will facilitate building social and physical systems and infrastructure, benefitting organisations, whether public, charitable or private. Originality/value – Clarity resulting in the avoidance of confusion and misunderstanding together with their consequent waste of time, resources and money. Keywords - responsibility, responsible, accountability, accountable, define, refined definition, RACI Paper type - Conceptual paper Introduction The concepts of accountability and responsibility are often confused and many dictionaries define one in terms of the other. This appears to have been a problem that has attracted little academic interest. These concepts impact both project and general management. Confusion of definition can produce great difficulty for practitioners in allocating “universal” accountability and can cause confusion in the application of governance models. This paper explores the concepts of accountability and responsibility in detail using a rigorous definitional refining method that removes unnecessary (non-essential) elements producing non-overlapping definitions. Their implications for project work is explored with a view to removing confusion and potentially achieving improved organisational, individual and research outcomes. Corresponding Author: Steve McGrath email: [email protected] Page 1 of 26 Stephen Keith McGrath, Stephen Jonathan Whitty, (2018)," Accountability and responsibility defined", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 11 Issue 3, pp.687-707, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-06-2017-0058 __________________________________________________________________________________ Definitional confusion regarding accountability and responsibility The importance of definition of terms was recognised by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, as noted by Smith (2014) who wrote “The definition was an important matter for Plato”, “Concern with answering the question “What is so-and-so?” are at the centre of the majority of Plato’s dialogues” and “Aristotle himself traces the quest for definitions back to Socrates” (Smith 2014). Nearly 2,000 years later, Hobbes wrote “To conclude, the light of humane minds is perspicuous words, but by exact definitions first snuffed, and purged from ambiguity; reason is the pace; increase of science, the way; and the benefit of mankind, the end” (Hobbes 1996, p. 32). Accepting this view, we seek to provide some benefit to management in general and project management in particular by removing ambiguity from the meanings of the terms accountability and responsibility. The need for removing ambiguity has been discussed by McGrath and Whitty (2015) in their examination of the term Governance. In their analysis of dictionary definitions they confirmed that terms such as accountability and responsibility are commonly defined in terms of each other. This indicates confusion in common usage, which impacts upon the general and project management communities. It is also evident from the analysis of the etymology of accountability and responsibility (reported in Step 8(a) of the analysis of each word below) that the two words have overlapped in meaning for centuries. Clarity of definition of accountability and responsibility is important in defining roles and responsibilities across organisations generally and within projects that organisations deliver. To demonstrate this, we refer to a 2006/07 attempt to determine accountabilities and responsibilities using a RACI matrix across all management levels of one large Government department, which the authors are not at liberty to name. At the time, the latest (3rd) edition of the Project Management Body of Knowledge Guide (PMBoK Guide) gave an example of a Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM) using the RACI coding - R = Responsible, A = Accountable, C = Consult and I = Inform (Project Management Institute 2004, p. 206). The previous (2nd) version had used the codes P = Participant, A = Accountable, R = Review required, I = Input required and S = Sign-off required (PARIS) (Project Management Institute 2000, p. 11). The RACI code was used in the government department’s attempt and started unsurprisingly from the perspective of the controlling legislation. However, once legislative accountability was determined, the question of organisational managerial and business unit accountability immediately arose. If a Director-General or CEO or project/ program/ portfolio manager is legislatively accountable for everything, whom do they hold to account? Once the A for accountability using the RACI model is allocated, how are formal delegations of authority denoted? And how is organisational accountability shown - to accommodate managers at each level holding their staff accountable? For every task of any nature one can look for who is actually doing the work and who is responsible for ensuring it is done properly. Sometimes this may be the same person and sometimes not. These difficulties resulted in a hiatus in the project that was dependent upon this mapping, with senior executives being confounded and unable to complete the accountability tables assigned to them. The issue was only resolved by one person retrieving the task, substituting “Accountable” with the word “Approve” and completing the table on their behalf. This difficulty was never documented or published. This attempt to allocate “universal” accountability produced significant difficulty and confusion, which was only resolved through clarity of definitions and understanding of their implications. This delayed the organisational change project for several months, which demonstrates the importance definitions can play in achieving timely delivery. Having definitions that enable a clear distinction between accountability and responsibility then provides an understanding of how these can cascade down through an Corresponding Author: Steve McGrath email: [email protected] Page 2 of 26 Stephen Keith McGrath, Stephen Jonathan Whitty, (2018)," Accountability and responsibility defined", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 11 Issue 3, pp.687-707, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-06-2017-0058 __________________________________________________________________________________ organisation. One person’s accountabilities are converted into their staff members’ responsibilities for which they can then be held accountable. Of course, establishing clear roles and responsibilities are vital for the effective functioning of any organisation and of any project, not just for those dealing with organisational change. The difficulties experienced with the application of one particular code, A for accountable and the existence of so many other coding conventions as noted in Step 8(c) of the definition of accountability, further indicates definitional confusion surrounding these terms and their application, both generally and within the field of project management. While the definition problem is universal, we also seek here to determine its relevance to the field of project management beyond the anecdotal evidence presented above. We again adopt a deductive approach and investigate the need for definitional clarity by examining a sample document selected from that field. If we find one that has difficulty with the definitions of these two terms, then the relevance of considering this issue in relation to the project management field is demonstrated. We arbitrarily